hi Steve. thanks for asking. i've been wondering this too. here
is a link. clicking on 'images' gives a representative sample...
West!
Frank Gehry and the Artists of Venice Beach, 1962-1978
http://www.weisman.umn.edu/exhibits/west/home.html
it was an immediate experience upon walking through the small
museum, and by the time i was leaving the door such a feeling
became prominent. not something i wanted to think/feel, it
was simply a non-experience beyond the confines of a finite
way of looking at things that has been hashed/rehashed so
many times, in so many ways, that it might also be considered
the weak point in Gehry's architecture- that it means very
little beyond its own formation of questions and ideas, and
is representative of the modern ideals/ideology it places.
you can have materiality, form, light, and still have nothing
if it does not transcend this materialism for something more.
and while architectural sainthood is all but bestowed on the
living legend, the 'art' that is said to have influenced the
uber 'artist-architect' is simply not stimulating, provocative,
insightful, interesting, alive, resonating- it is all quite dead.
it is like walking in a mortuary of architectural ideas, there
is no future in the architectural ideas in these artworks, it
is static, stuck back in those days, reliving as building now.
unduly harsh, i don't think so. maybe it is that this 'artist'
thing about architecture is as hollow as this show is, and to
make the case that there is great insight into the art or even
into architecture, is, well, a bit of a reach. maybe it does
show a cross-materialism where pottery, sculpture, painting,
architecture may share some themes, aesthetic ideas, yet it
does not translate very clearly if this is it. a small show,
maybe the point is that there are no 'big ideas' here, beyond
architecture of materials, light, and formalism of the modern.
open for other perspectives if someone's seen this or when they
do. or maybe it is like background music and that is the point.
Gehry's architecture and art stands on its own, and should, imo.
unless this is preparations for further shrine building of egos.
Brian
is a link. clicking on 'images' gives a representative sample...
West!
Frank Gehry and the Artists of Venice Beach, 1962-1978
http://www.weisman.umn.edu/exhibits/west/home.html
it was an immediate experience upon walking through the small
museum, and by the time i was leaving the door such a feeling
became prominent. not something i wanted to think/feel, it
was simply a non-experience beyond the confines of a finite
way of looking at things that has been hashed/rehashed so
many times, in so many ways, that it might also be considered
the weak point in Gehry's architecture- that it means very
little beyond its own formation of questions and ideas, and
is representative of the modern ideals/ideology it places.
you can have materiality, form, light, and still have nothing
if it does not transcend this materialism for something more.
and while architectural sainthood is all but bestowed on the
living legend, the 'art' that is said to have influenced the
uber 'artist-architect' is simply not stimulating, provocative,
insightful, interesting, alive, resonating- it is all quite dead.
it is like walking in a mortuary of architectural ideas, there
is no future in the architectural ideas in these artworks, it
is static, stuck back in those days, reliving as building now.
unduly harsh, i don't think so. maybe it is that this 'artist'
thing about architecture is as hollow as this show is, and to
make the case that there is great insight into the art or even
into architecture, is, well, a bit of a reach. maybe it does
show a cross-materialism where pottery, sculpture, painting,
architecture may share some themes, aesthetic ideas, yet it
does not translate very clearly if this is it. a small show,
maybe the point is that there are no 'big ideas' here, beyond
architecture of materials, light, and formalism of the modern.
open for other perspectives if someone's seen this or when they
do. or maybe it is like background music and that is the point.
Gehry's architecture and art stands on its own, and should, imo.
unless this is preparations for further shrine building of egos.
Brian
Brian, was the exhibit really that bad? It's always nice when an exhibit excites, but it seemed to have excited you in a very negative sense. Did the exhibit not reflect the work that was coming out of Venice, CA at the time? Did the exhibit not put Gehry's formative years in its artistic context? Or did all just look like (an orgy of) ego petting?